It is advisable to issue an overall description of performance management to performance management processes employees, which sets out its objectives and method of operation and the benefits it is expected to provide for the organization and its managers and employees. Some organizations have prepared elaborate and lengthy briefing documents but fairly succinct documents often suffice as long as they are written in simple language and are well produced.
It is also advisable to supplement written with oral briefings through a briefing group system, if there is one, or a special briefing program. In a large or dispersed organization this briefing will have to be carried out by line managers and they should be issued with special briefing packs and, possibly, a list of typical questions and their answers.
110
MONITORING AND EVALUATING PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT
It is important to monitor the introduction of performance management very carefully but it is equally vital to continue to monitor and evaluate it regularly, especially after its first year of operation.
The best method of monitoring and evaluation is to ask those involved - managers, individuals and teams - how it worked. As many as possible should be seen, individually and in groups, to discuss the points set out in the last section of this chapter. It is also desirable to scrutinize a sample of completed forms to check on how well and thoroughly they have been completed. The evaluation can be carried out by members of the project team and/or by the personnel function. An independent consultant or adviser can be used to conduct a special review.
Individual and group discussions can be supplemented by a special survey of reactions to performance management, which could be completed anonymously by all managers and staff. The results should be fed back to all concerned and analyzed to assess the need for any amendments to the processor further training requirements. The ultimate test, of course, is analyzing organizational performance to establish the extent to which improvements can be attributed to performance management. It may be difficult to establish a direct connection but more detailed assessments with managers and staff on the impact of the process may reveal specific areas in which performance has been improved, which could be linked to an overall performance measure(Armstrong, 2005).
111
Chapter5
360-Degree
FeedbackAppraisal System
INTRODUCTION
Traditional performance appraisal involves bosses assessing their staff. Yet the people who actually work with us – peers, subordinates, suppliers and customers – can often provide far more accurate and useful insights into our strengths, weaknesses and scope for development1.
One of the more important ways that employees can develop is to receive ratings of their performance from their co-workers bosses, peers, subordinates, and others. Known as 360-degree feedback, this activity is now widely used by human resources professionals and in leadership development programs.
The United Statearmed forces first used 360 degree feedback to support the development of staff in the 1940s. The system gained momentum slowly, but the 1990 most Human Resource (HR) and Organizational Development (OD) professionals understood the concept. The problem that was collecting and collating the feedback demanded a paper-based effort reports. The first led to despair on the part of practitioners, the second of gradual erosion of commitment by recipients.
1
112
Introducing the 360-degree feedback can loosen up a rigid corporate culture and cast light on the vital process factors – teamwork, communications, decision- making and morale – that underlie long-term business success. The essential principles are explained further.
When the first online 360 degree feedback tools appeared in 1998, it became possible to request feedback from raters anywhere in the world by email, to customize automated systems, and to generate reports for recipients in minutes. In recent years, internet-based services have become the norm, with a growing menu of useful features: e.g. multi languages reporting and aggregate reporting.
In human resources or industrial/organizational psychology, 360-degree feedback, also known as multi-rater feedback, multi source feedback, or multi source assessment, is employee development feedback that comes from all around the employees. “360” refers to the 360 degrees in a circle.
The feedback would come from subordinates, peers, and managers in the organizational hierarchy (Newble, Paget, Mclaren, 1999; Norcini, 1999), as well as self-assessment, and in some cases external sources such as customers and suppliers or other interested direct reports, or a traditional performance appraisal, where the employees are most often reviewed only by their managers. Interpersonal skills and behaviors have been consistently recognized as lying at the heart of satisfying clinical encounters (southgate, 1999). Lack of such skills and inappropriate behaviors are a potent cause of system failure (Excellence, 2001). The results from 360-degree feedback are often used by the person receiving the feedback to plan their training and development. The results are also used by some organizations for making promotional or pay decisions, which are sometimes called “360”-degree review.
TYPICAL 360 DEGREE EVALUATORS
Officers’ supervisor Peers/ colleagues
113 The individual themselves
Typically, performance appraisal has been limited to a feedback process between employees and supervisors. This multiple-input approach to performance feedback is sometimes called “360-degree assessment” to connote that full circle.
360-Degree feedback is aimed at improving performance by providing a better awareness of strengths and weaknesses. The employee receives feedback, in anonymous form , on performance ratings from peers, superiors and subordinates (Kaplan, 1994).
Feedback from multiple sources, such as superiors, peers, subordinates and others has a more powerful impact on people than information from a single source, such as theirimmediate supervisor. Employees view performance information from multiple sources as fair, accurate, credible and motivating. They are more likely to be motivated to change their work habits to obtain the esteem of their co-workers than the respect of their supervisors (Edwardsand Ewen, 1994). Many organizations have found that single source appraisals provide inflated evaluations, giving nearly all rate’s high performance ratings. This process creates an environment in which employees feel entitled to regular raises and promotions without providing them the information needed for development. Managers find it difficult to provide specific and critical feedback so they tend to shy away from addressing performance problems.
The 360-degree feedback appraisal, also known as multi-source assessment or full circle feedback, gathers evaluation data from all of those who work most closely with the person being evaluated, regardless of position. The collective intelligence these people provide gives the appraise a clear understanding of personal strengths as well as areas that need further development(Edwards and Ewen, 1994). A prime advantage is that 360 provides a more comprehensive view of employee performance. Not only does this method provide feedback from a variety of viewpoints, it also minimizes the bias problems that are inherent to evaluations.
The more appraisers an employee has, the more likely the biases of the raters will tend to cancel one another out, and the more their perspectives will combine to give a complete , accurate and honest picture.
114
It is not unusual for both the managers and his or her raters to be anxious about how these data will be used. The expectations for what managers should do with their 360-degree feedback should be clear before the process begins.
Managers should also be told what kind of organizational support will be made available to them. Co-workers who will be part of the process also need to know that this is an assessment for development not a performance appraisal, or part of a salary or promotion review. The attitudes of 360-degree users are critical to the system's effectiveness. Inaccurate feedback systems or more importantly the perception of inaccurate feedback process can lead to any number of unpleasant outcomes including punitive feedback, inappropriate development goals, emotional distress, organizational cynicism and nonparticipation.
Simms(1996) recommended an action plan be developed to implement a subordinate appraisal system in the Texarkana, Texas Fire Department. The results of his study indicated that the subordinate appraisal of supervisors could be a viable accepted system that could improve the overall performance appraisal process.
David Lobdell in his research project Selecting An Appropriate Performance Appraisal Program For Spokane Valley Fire Department, (1997) recommended that 360 degree appraisal was the most beneficial for a fire department in today’s work environment. Four basic methods were identified in his research:
The conventional top down, The peer rating,
The bottom up where employees rate their supervisors,
The 360 degree evaluation which he states is a combination of the other three.
Lobdell (1997) recommended that the evaluation be implemented carefully and that they should be used only for employee self evaluation and development. The individual ratings should be kept confidential and should be fairly short. He recommended that training must be conducted for both giving and receiving feedback before the program is implemented, and the program should be evaluated periodically and modified to meet the changing needs of the organization.
115
completed in about thirty (30) minutes. The performance on which the employee is being rated should be clearly understood and related to the position held. There should be a minimum of five to six evaluators to protect anonymity and provide sufficient perspective. The immediate supervisor of the appraise should receive the completed evaluations. He should tabulate them onto a clean form with the comments (Palmer, Rayner, Wall, 2007).
IMPORTANCE OF THE 360 DEGREE EVALUATION
Conducting performance reviews in general, provides a number of valuable functions for organizations. They allow an organization to:
Translate department/organization’s mission into specific achievable goals Manage performance rather than react to it
Reduce overlap of job duties and ineffective, inefficient use of employee skills
Provide written acknowledgment of completed work Gain new information and ideas from staff
Discuss skill and career development Protect organization from unfounded charges of discrimination
Reduce stress for the supervisor -- managing rather than reacting
Reduce stress for the employee – what is expected is made clear (alexander, 2006).
Feedback can provide organization value, allowing us to identify needs and set goals for organizational development and training within the university.
Individual get a broader perspective of how they are perceived by others than previously possible.
116
Gaining acceptance of the principle of multiple stakeholders a measure of performance.
Clarified to employees critical performance aspects.
Opens up feedback and gives people a more rounded view of performance than they had previously.
Provides reliable and user-friendly feedback reports.
Direct reports and peers, rather than management /supervisors are better to judge some skills such as leadership.
An individual can better manage their own performance and careers.
A rounded view of the individual`s /team`s/ organization`s performance and what the strengths and weaknesses are.
WHAT IS 360-DEGREE FEEDBACK?